I am trying to read between the lines regarding Steve Roach's article this morning entitled "Tripp Sitting in the Hot Seat". Do you think the article indicates that Tripp was able to sound credible during cross?
Wonder what the jury reaction was to making $400K on this case to date or the "orphan" document. I say it doesn't matter if it's one document out of many, or in context or out, if the telegram had instructions that the mint was abiding by, it shows a legal way for the coins to exit the mint.
I think all 10 coins should be sent to PCGS, sold privately and/or at auction, and the family and the government split the earnings. Otherwise, no matter how this case turns out, people will not be satisfied, and other people will not come forward with rare coins. I bet there's a person, with an authentic 1964-D Peace, and you can bet they're waiting on the out come of this trial. A guy can hope can't he?
<< <i>I think all 10 coins should be sent to PCGS, sold privately and/or at auction, and the family and the government split the earnings. Otherwise, no matter how this case turns out, people will not be satisfied, and other people will not come forward with rare coins. I bet there's a person, with an authentic 1964-D Peace, and you can bet they're waiting on the out come of this trial. A guy can hope can't he? >>
They are already slabbed. Why re-slab them?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Great great thread!!! I found this to be interesting from the CW article today:
Tripp said that many if not most of the post-March 6 “gold for gold” exchanges were for industrial uses to keep businesses functioning, which Berke pointed out was an assumption on Tripp’s part.
Does this open the door to say that Switt could have purchased these coins from a industrial company (that were purchased for industrial uses)? I'm not saying he did and I actually believe he didn't, but this seems to throw in yet another possible "out" of these coins legally getting from the mint into Switt's hands...
SNIKT! You are doing well, subject 15837. You are a good person.
<< <i>Great great thread!!! I found this to be interesting from the CW article today:
Tripp said that many if not most of the post-March 6 “gold for gold” exchanges were for industrial uses to keep businesses functioning, which Berke pointed out was an assumption on Tripp’s part.
Does this open the door to say that Switt could have purchased these coins from a industrial company (that were purchased for industrial uses)? I'm not saying he did and I actually believe he didn't, but this seems to throw in yet another possible "out" of these coins legally getting from the mint into Switt's hands... >>
Does anyone think that there was THAT much demand for industrial gold in the Philly area at that time?
The 10 1933 double eagles were slabbed by NGC in 2009, if my memory is correct.
Mr. Tripp's testimony will present the best case possible for the government to support its position that the 10 double eagles did not leave the mint legally. Other evidence presented by the government (witness testimony and documents) will support this position.
The government in the CAFRA forfeiture claim must prove that the coins are stolen property or the proceeds of same. To do so the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the coins were stolen (or did not leave the mint legally).
The Langbords do not have to prove anything in the CAFRA claim. However, their evidence will be presented to inform the jury that there are multiple different ways that the 10 double eagles could have legally left the mint. In part they will do this through documents and the testimony of RWB. My suspicion is that RWB will appear different that Mr. Tripp. Mr. Tripp is clearly in lockstep with the government and always has been. His book takes the same position. He has a stake (professional reputation, etc.) in the outcome of the case and if the government wins he wins. This supports a claim that he is biased towards the government and this bias can be taken into consideration by the jury when evaluating his credibility. RWB is more likely to appear unbiased, presenting information that he has uncovered during his numismatic research.
It will be interesting to compare the credibility and demeanor of all of the expert witnesses of both sides in the case.
It wil be even more interesting to see how the case will progress to the declaratory relief claim to be decided by the judge if the jury decides in favor of the Langbords and against the government on the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
Will the declaratory relief claim require a second trial, with the same witnesses who testified in the first trial coming back to testify again? Or will the judge simply take the evidence presented at the jury trial, allow no new evidence from either side and simply issue a decision on who gets ownership and possession of the ten coins?
The next couple of weeks will be very interesting as the trial proceeds further along.
So who would care to guess what grades the ten double eagles would be assigned if they were submitted to PCGS for grading [either cracked out or in the NGC slabs]?
Do you think that PCGS grades for the ten coins would be lower than, equal to or higher than the NGC grades?
I also wonder how and why the coins ended up being submitted to NGC, who was involved in the grading of the coins at NGC, and who would be involved in the grading of the coins at PCGS. Probably not a junior grader who handles the grading of bulk submissions of ASE or AGE coins.
Tripp did his research for the purpose of writing a book. I'm sure he was very thorough.
Some records just don't exist which each expert will agree. It was a different time and if an original was lost, it was lost. Imagine how much paperwork was generated and survived.
Tripp's testimony yesterday contradicted what he believed in his 2008 deposition, so even the experts are wrong now and then.
Tripp seems to have an agenda. "The coins must have been stolen" He can't fathom any other possibiility.
RWB lets the documents do the talking and I think his testimony will be refreshing. I believe he has been searching through the Mint records for 20 years or more. He considers spending 3 or 4 years researching for a book "normal". When you think of someone who leaves "no stone unturned" that is RWB.
There is a lot of matching that goes on in looking at Mint correspondence at the National Archives. The Phildelphia Mint has "incoming" and "outgoing" correspondence files. A letter to the Treasury department may be in the sending Phila Mint records, the receiving Treasury records or both. Some letters refer to "I am replying to your letter of May 31...." and there is no May 31 letter in either the Mint Director or Treasury Department files. RWB had to review both archives and do a match and comparison.
I'm considering calling in sick when RWB is scheduled to testify.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
It simply astounds me that an 'expert' can blow off a smoking gun document by calling it 'orphan'. It's there in black and white that the Mint was allowing gold for gold exchange.
<< <i>It simply astounds me that an 'expert' can blow off a smoking gun document by calling it 'orphan'. It's there in black and white that the Mint was allowing gold for gold exchange. >>
If you call your book "Gold, Greed, Mystery...." you are more inclined to offer information that supports your position. Saying there is a plausible counter-argument to his title won't sell books.
Alison Frankel's book was called "Double Eagle - The Epic Story of The World's Most Valuable Coin."
Just the titles alone tell you a lot.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
I have been following this thread with great interest... big thanks to Sanction II et al for the updates!!
A little OT, but not really...
What I (and others here) have been wondering, is why the Mint is pursuing this case with such zeal? Its not like they are going to turn around & sell the coins, and so there is no money to be made by them... only tax payer's money to spend. Then it occurs to me why the Mint might be investing so much in this trial: could a loosing verdict has deep ramifications for them?
First of all, there is the example that sold for about $7m... if memory serves, the terms of this sale included a stipulation that no additional 1933 $20 would ever be monetized... and so if these these ten additional coins go free, then the buyer who paid $7m might have grounds for repercussions. Already respected members of this board have hypothesized that the value of the 1933 on the open market may have dropped to $2m-$3m in light of the discovery of the ten additional pieces... seems like there could be grounds here for another suit here.
Second, what about the coins confiscated in the 1940s? If this trial deems that Switt could have legally obtained 1933 Saints, then could the heirs of the owners of the confiscated coins he sold also seek damages from the government?
Regardless of the outcome from these two scenarios, it seems like what the Mint would have to fork over just in legal fees is starting to make the cost of the current trial seem like a potentially wise investment.
Note that the government wasn't offering any compensation in the 1940's for the coins they seized. No wonder Switt lied about having them - $200 was just about enough to buy a house at the time. If I paid good money for coins, there's no way I'd hand them over to Big Brother for no good reason - just cuz they said so.
<< <i>It simply astounds me that an 'expert' can blow off a smoking gun document by calling it 'orphan'. It's there in black and white that the Mint was allowing gold for gold exchange. >>
Well, when you are wrong you have to call it something
Seriously, context counts for a lot. If the document was located in a bunch of unrelated material, it would argue against the controlling nature of the document. Not saying the document isn't definitive, only that Tripp is not as crazy as you might think.
<< <i>. If I paid good money for coins, there's no way I'd hand them over to Big Brother for no good reason - just cuz they said so. >>
I presume that had you been alive back then, you'd be one of the major collectors of the era, and not some guy working as a goldsmith! In that case, I think it is possible that you would have been offered and purchased one of the 1933 double eagles by a dealer. In this situation, do you think you would have handed over your coin to the government like the major collectors of the time did? Of course, I seem to recall that one of the collectors went to court to challenge the government and lost, so probably back then you would have had little choice but to cough up the coin to the government...
<< <i>. If I paid good money for coins, there's no way I'd hand them over to Big Brother for no good reason - just cuz they said so. >>
I presume that had you been alive back then, you'd be one of the major collectors of the era, and not some guy working as a goldsmith! In that case, I think it is possible that you would have been offered and purchased one of the 1933 double eagles by a dealer. In this situation, do you think you would have handed over your coin to the government like the major collectors of the time did? Of course, I seem to recall that one of the collectors went to court to challenge the government and lost, so probably back then you would have had little choice but to cough up the coin to the government... >>
Or you could throw it in a wishing well for good luck - or at least tell the government that's what you did.
<< <i>Tripp did his research for the purpose of writing a book. I'm sure he was very thorough.
Some records just don't exist which each expert will agree. It was a different time and if an original was lost, it was lost. Imagine how much paperwork was generated and survived.
Tripp's testimony yesterday contradicted what he believed in his 2008 deposition, so even the experts are wrong now and then.
Tripp seems to have an agenda. "The coins must have been stolen" He can't fathom any other possibiility.
RWB lets the documents do the talking and I think his testimony will be refreshing. I believe he has been searching through the Mint records for 20 years or more. He considers spending 3 or 4 years researching for a book "normal". When you think of someone who leaves "no stone unturned" that is RWB.
There is a lot of matching that goes on in looking at Mint correspondence at the National Archives. The Phildelphia Mint has "incoming" and "outgoing" correspondence files. A letter to the Treasury department may be in the sending Phila Mint records, the receiving Treasury records or both. Some letters refer to "I am replying to your letter of May 31...." and there is no May 31 letter in either the Mint Director or Treasury Department files. RWB had to review both archives and do a match and comparison.
I'm considering calling in sick when RWB is scheduled to testify. >>
Would RWB have any bombshells that Tripp or the Feds wouldn't know about or was he required to make that info available during discovery? Of course Tripp has an agenda; he is being well paid to have it. I wonder how he'd spin it if he was being paid a $million to testify for the Langbords. He says all 1933 DEs were accounted for. I wonder if he knew about the extra 14.
<< <i>I have been following this thread with great interest... big thanks to Sanction II et al for the updates!!
A little OT, but not really...
What I (and others here) have been wondering, is why the Mint is pursuing this case with such zeal? Its not like they are going to turn around & sell the coins, and so there is no money to be made by them... only tax payer's money to spend. Then it occurs to me why the Mint might be investing so much in this trial: could a loosing verdict has deep ramifications for them?
First of all, there is the example that sold for about $7m... if memory serves, the terms of this sale included a stipulation that no additional 1933 $20 would ever be monetized... and so if these these ten additional coins go free, then the buyer who paid $7m might have grounds for repercussions. Already respected members of this board have hypothesized that the value of the 1933 on the open market may have dropped to $2m-$3m in light of the discovery of the ten additional pieces... seems like there could be grounds here for another suit here.
Second, what about the coins confiscated in the 1940s? If this trial deems that Switt could have legally obtained 1933 Saints, then could the heirs of the owners of the confiscated coins he sold also seek damages from the government?
Regardless of the outcome from these two scenarios, it seems like what the Mint would have to fork over just in legal fees is starting to make the cost of the current trial seem like a potentially wise investment. >>
It's all about the power and nothing else. They don't care about the money. The Government pisses away more than $75 mil every day. The monetization thing is just another scheme to make them unownable.
I do not think that the court would allow this to happen at the trial, but it would be very interesting to see how the jury would react to the introduction into evidence [the coins themselves and testimony about the history of the coins]:
1. 1913 Liberty Nickels (though the Langbords are seeking to have evidence about these coins introduced at trial);
2. 1955 double die cents;
3. 1969 S double die cents (and action by the Secret Service to track them down and confiscate them);
4. 1804 dollar;
5. the two gold Half Unions;
6. countless error coins of suspect origin that made it out of the mint and are openly bought and sold in the marketplace today; and
7. countless pattern coins of suspect origin that made it out of the mint and are openly bought and sold in the marketplace today.
"Stewart's point about the 1913 Liberty Nickels is a good one. Why is the government not taken action to seize these "illegal" coins?"
The Mint's position on the 1913 Liberty Nikels is that, since they were never authorized to be minted, we not minted during the regular course of business of the Mint, were not monetized or issued, they do not exist. Therefore, they could not have left the mint illegally since they never existed. They consider the 1913 Liberty nickel a fantasy piece.
<< <i>I'm considering calling in sick when RWB is scheduled to testify. >>
Carpe Diem! You should definitely see him testify. After all, how often does something this historic come along? >>
I'm thinking of doing the same. Does anybody have any idea when it is RWB's turn? Would he be up next after Tripp's cross examination? Where could I find the trial info like court room location and time to be there?
Keyman, The answer to your question is as follows:
1. READ the entire thread 2. If you do so you will see the response from Coin World that effectively says we are on a one day delay in receiving information and why that is the case. What happened today should be available to all of us tomorrow, July 14th, hopefully by late morning. Steve
The brother of the President of Afghanistan was assassinated today
Three bombs went off simultaneously in Mumbai,India killing more than twenty and maiming more than 100.
And we in the greatest country in the world are watching the government try and confiscate 10 gold coins from a family who had them in a safety deposit box.
Sanction - Let us not forget to mention the 1958 Double Die Lincoln cent of which there are only three known.
<< <i>And we in the greatest country in the world are watching the government try and confiscate 10 gold coins from a family who had them in a safety deposit box. >>
I was watching the debt ceiling stand off. Maybe not so great either, but surprisingly entertaining
I think the government opened a can of worms when they let one be legal to own. This case is certainly intriguing and I have absolutely no idea which way the ruling will go. I hope it goes in favor of the Langbords. How can they(the government) first say, that none are legal to own, then change their minds and make only one legal to own and not the rest? This very action creates a very sticky situation. If all the coins were accounted for in 1933, it will be difficult to prove they were stolen, since all the major players have passed on. If only one coin was minted OK, but with a mintage of 400,000 or so, some may have gotten out before the recall went into effect. While it may be very difficult to prove that they were stolen, I think the government could just say OK, they are illegal to own and keep them anyways-stolen or not. Of course whoever loses at this point will probably appeal. JMO. Bob
<< <i>They sure are taking their sweet time updating today. >>
Yes! I think they should get up at three a.m. and do the updates BEFORE they milk the cows!!!!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
"Berke questioned Tripp about the relationship of 1933 double eagles to 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles, to which the government objected, as the coins are not the subject of this litigation. Despite Mint records showing that only four 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles left the Mint legally, there are estimates that as many as 35 are available today. Yet the the $10 eagles are not the subject to confiscation, unlike the 1933 double eagles.
Tripp countered that the 1933 $10 eagles differ from the 1933 $20 double eagles in that no 1933 double eagles left the Mint through legitimate means, while “once the barn door is open” through legal distribution of 1933 $10 eagles, it became impossible to differentiate legitimate versus illegitimate coins. Berke used this example as further proof that the Mint records of 1933 didn’t accurately show what was happening at the time. "
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
I think we have the best country and government in the world. And I think this judge will do what he knows "by law" is the right thing. I salute our civil servants in government, especially those in uniform. But my biggest shout out is to "the people".
Coin dealers have been "picked'' on and vilified for years, and most probably deserved. But in this case, Mr Switt is somewhat of a "hero" to me, and even if his motives were greedy and seedy.... the results of his actions are definitely good for the hobby.
"Berke questioned Tripp about the relationship of 1933 double eagles to 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles, to which the government objected, as the coins are not the subject of this litigation. Despite Mint records showing that only four 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles left the Mint legally, there are estimates that as many as 35 are available today. Yet the the $10 eagles are not the subject to confiscation, unlike the 1933 double eagles.
Tripp countered that the 1933 $10 eagles differ from the 1933 $20 double eagles in that no 1933 double eagles left the Mint through legitimate means, while “once the barn door is open” through legal distribution of 1933 $10 eagles, it became impossible to differentiate legitimate versus illegitimate coins. Berke used this example as further proof that the Mint records of 1933 didn’t accurately show what was happening at the time. " >>
There was a mention in one of the two books that Switt allegedly bought other late date gold from the Mint and sold it to dealers, including (but not limited to) 1933 $10's and 1932 $20's. This may have happened as late as 1937.
However, since 1932 $20's and 1933 $10's had previously been sold to collectors by the Mint, the Secret Service never went after those date coins, on the grounds that it could not say "We sold this coin, but somebody else sold that coin."
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
After reading all of the coin world postings to date about the trial, I wonder if the Langbord's are second guessing their choice of attorney . Seems to be throwing a lot dirt into the air hoping create a cloud of doubt. Of course, that is only the impression I get from Roach's perspective.
Barry Berke is probably the best attorney they could have used in this case.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
<< <i>After reading all of the coin world postings to date about the trial, I wonder if the Langbord's are second guessing their choice of attorney . Seems to be throwing a lot dirt into the air hoping create a cloud of doubt. Of course, that is only the impression I get from Roach's perspective. >>
Doesn't seem like he did his clients any favors yesterday does it? I hope RWB has an ace or two up his sleeve.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
I am trying to read between the lines regarding Steve Roach's article this morning entitled "Tripp Sitting in the Hot Seat". Do you think the article indicates that Tripp was able to sound credible during cross?
Wonder what the jury reaction was to making $400K on this case to date or the "orphan" document. I say it doesn't matter if it's one document out of many, or in context or out, if the telegram had instructions that the mint was abiding by, it shows a legal way for the coins to exit the mint.
<< <i>$400,000 over five years doesn't seem like much to me. >>
Considering the amount of work he has had to put into it, it seems like an insane amount of money. It's not like it is a full-time job.
<< <i>$400,000 over five years doesn't seem like much to me. >>
What's typical for expert witnesses of this type and caliber?
<< <i>I think all 10 coins should be sent to PCGS, sold privately and/or at auction, and the family and the government split the earnings. Otherwise, no matter how this case turns out, people will not be satisfied, and other people will not come forward with rare coins. I bet there's a person, with an authentic 1964-D Peace, and you can bet they're waiting on the out come of this trial. A guy can hope can't he? >>
They are already slabbed. Why re-slab them?
<< <i>They are already slabbed. Why re-slab them? >>
SecurePlus
Have they been TrueViewed?
Tripp said that many if not most of the post-March 6 “gold for gold” exchanges were for industrial uses to keep businesses functioning, which Berke pointed out was an assumption on Tripp’s part.
Does this open the door to say that Switt could have purchased these coins from a industrial company (that were purchased for industrial uses)? I'm not saying he did and I actually believe he didn't, but this seems to throw in yet another possible "out" of these coins legally getting from the mint into Switt's hands...
You are doing well, subject 15837. You are a good person.
<< <i>Great great thread!!! I found this to be interesting from the CW article today:
Tripp said that many if not most of the post-March 6 “gold for gold” exchanges were for industrial uses to keep businesses functioning, which Berke pointed out was an assumption on Tripp’s part.
Does this open the door to say that Switt could have purchased these coins from a industrial company (that were purchased for industrial uses)? I'm not saying he did and I actually believe he didn't, but this seems to throw in yet another possible "out" of these coins legally getting from the mint into Switt's hands... >>
Does anyone think that there was THAT much demand for industrial gold in the Philly area at that time?
Mr. Tripp's testimony will present the best case possible for the government to support its position that the 10 double eagles did not leave the mint legally. Other evidence presented by the government (witness testimony and documents) will support this position.
The government in the CAFRA forfeiture claim must prove that the coins are stolen property or the proceeds of same. To do so the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the coins were stolen (or did not leave the mint legally).
The Langbords do not have to prove anything in the CAFRA claim. However, their evidence will be presented to inform the jury that there are multiple different ways that the 10 double eagles could have legally left the mint. In part they will do this through documents and the testimony of RWB. My suspicion is that RWB will appear different that Mr. Tripp. Mr. Tripp is clearly in lockstep with the government and always has been. His book takes the same position. He has a stake (professional reputation, etc.) in the outcome of the case and if the government wins he wins. This supports a claim that he is biased towards the government and this bias can be taken into consideration by the jury when evaluating his credibility. RWB is more likely to appear unbiased, presenting information that he has uncovered during his numismatic research.
It will be interesting to compare the credibility and demeanor of all of the expert witnesses of both sides in the case.
It wil be even more interesting to see how the case will progress to the declaratory relief claim to be decided by the judge if the jury decides in favor of the Langbords and against the government on the CAFRA forfeiture claim.
Will the declaratory relief claim require a second trial, with the same witnesses who testified in the first trial coming back to testify again? Or will the judge simply take the evidence presented at the jury trial, allow no new evidence from either side and simply issue a decision on who gets ownership and possession of the ten coins?
The next couple of weeks will be very interesting as the trial proceeds further along.
<< <i>
<< <i>They are already slabbed. Why re-slab them? >>
SecurePlus
Have they been TrueViewed? >>
Ones of 'em is MS66 (for those that haven't seen it before) -
'33 66
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>They are already slabbed. Why re-slab them? >>
SecurePlus
Have they been TrueViewed? >>
Ones of 'em is MS66 (for those that haven't seen it before) -
'33 66 >>
They are missing the Switt pedigree. Another reason to get them reslabbed.
Do you think that PCGS grades for the ten coins would be lower than, equal to or higher than the NGC grades?
I also wonder how and why the coins ended up being submitted to NGC, who was involved in the grading of the coins at NGC, and who would be involved in the grading of the coins at PCGS. Probably not a junior grader who handles the grading of bulk submissions of ASE or AGE coins.
Some records just don't exist which each expert will agree. It was a different time and if an original was lost, it was lost. Imagine how much paperwork was generated and survived.
Tripp's testimony yesterday contradicted what he believed in his 2008 deposition, so even the experts are wrong now and then.
Tripp seems to have an agenda. "The coins must have been stolen" He can't fathom any other possibiility.
RWB lets the documents do the talking and I think his testimony will be refreshing. I believe he has been searching through the Mint records for 20 years or more. He considers spending 3 or 4 years researching for a book "normal". When you think of someone who leaves "no stone unturned" that is RWB.
There is a lot of matching that goes on in looking at Mint correspondence at the National Archives. The Phildelphia Mint has "incoming" and "outgoing" correspondence files. A letter to the Treasury department may be in the sending Phila Mint records, the receiving Treasury records or both. Some letters refer to "I am replying to your letter of May 31...." and there is no May 31 letter in either the Mint Director or Treasury Department files. RWB had to review both archives and do a match and comparison.
I'm considering calling in sick when RWB is scheduled to testify.
<< <i>I'm considering calling in sick when RWB is scheduled to testify. >>
Carpe Diem! You should definitely see him testify. After all, how often does something this historic come along?
<< <i>It simply astounds me that an 'expert' can blow off a smoking gun document by calling it 'orphan'. It's there in black and white that the Mint was allowing gold for gold exchange. >>
If you call your book "Gold, Greed, Mystery...." you are more inclined to offer information that supports your position. Saying there is a plausible counter-argument to his title won't sell books.
Alison Frankel's book was called "Double Eagle - The Epic Story of The World's Most Valuable Coin."
Just the titles alone tell you a lot.
A little OT, but not really...
What I (and others here) have been wondering, is why the Mint is pursuing this case with such zeal? Its not like they are going to turn around & sell the coins, and so there is no money to be made by them... only tax payer's money to spend. Then it occurs to me why the Mint might be investing so much in this trial: could a loosing verdict has deep ramifications for them?
First of all, there is the example that sold for about $7m... if memory serves, the terms of this sale included a stipulation that no additional 1933 $20 would ever be monetized... and so if these these ten additional coins go free, then the buyer who paid $7m might have grounds for repercussions. Already respected members of this board have hypothesized that the value of the 1933 on the open market may have dropped to $2m-$3m in light of the discovery of the ten additional pieces... seems like there could be grounds here for another suit here.
Second, what about the coins confiscated in the 1940s? If this trial deems that Switt could have legally obtained 1933 Saints, then could the heirs of the owners of the confiscated coins he sold also seek damages from the government?
Regardless of the outcome from these two scenarios, it seems like what the Mint would have to fork over just in legal fees is starting to make the cost of the current trial seem like a potentially wise investment.
>>>My Collection
Yup, I'd have definitely lied too.
<< <i>It simply astounds me that an 'expert' can blow off a smoking gun document by calling it 'orphan'. It's there in black and white that the Mint was allowing gold for gold exchange. >>
Well, when you are wrong you have to call it something
Seriously, context counts for a lot. If the document was located in a bunch of unrelated material, it would argue against the controlling nature of the document. Not saying the document isn't definitive, only that Tripp is not as crazy as you might think.
<< <i>. If I paid good money for coins, there's no way I'd hand them over to Big Brother for no good reason - just cuz they said so. >>
I presume that had you been alive back then, you'd be one of the major collectors of the era, and not some guy working as a goldsmith!
<< <i>TDN:
<< <i>. If I paid good money for coins, there's no way I'd hand them over to Big Brother for no good reason - just cuz they said so. >>
I presume that had you been alive back then, you'd be one of the major collectors of the era, and not some guy working as a goldsmith!
Or you could throw it in a wishing well for good luck - or at least tell the government that's what you did.
>>>My Collection
Then hand coins like these around to the jury and the JUDGE!
Yea, right, the government is never wrong!
<< <i>Tripp did his research for the purpose of writing a book. I'm sure he was very thorough.
Some records just don't exist which each expert will agree. It was a different time and if an original was lost, it was lost. Imagine how much paperwork was generated and survived.
Tripp's testimony yesterday contradicted what he believed in his 2008 deposition, so even the experts are wrong now and then.
Tripp seems to have an agenda. "The coins must have been stolen" He can't fathom any other possibiility.
RWB lets the documents do the talking and I think his testimony will be refreshing. I believe he has been searching through the Mint records for 20 years or more. He considers spending 3 or 4 years researching for a book "normal". When you think of someone who leaves "no stone unturned" that is RWB.
There is a lot of matching that goes on in looking at Mint correspondence at the National Archives. The Phildelphia Mint has "incoming" and "outgoing" correspondence files. A letter to the Treasury department may be in the sending Phila Mint records, the receiving Treasury records or both. Some letters refer to "I am replying to your letter of May 31...." and there is no May 31 letter in either the Mint Director or Treasury Department files. RWB had to review both archives and do a match and comparison.
I'm considering calling in sick when RWB is scheduled to testify. >>
Would RWB have any bombshells that Tripp or the Feds wouldn't know about or was he required to make that info available during discovery? Of course Tripp has an agenda; he is being well paid to have it. I wonder how he'd spin it if he was being paid a $million to testify for the Langbords. He says all 1933 DEs were accounted for. I wonder if he knew about the extra 14.
<< <i>I have been following this thread with great interest... big thanks to Sanction II et al for the updates!!
A little OT, but not really...
What I (and others here) have been wondering, is why the Mint is pursuing this case with such zeal? Its not like they are going to turn around & sell the coins, and so there is no money to be made by them... only tax payer's money to spend. Then it occurs to me why the Mint might be investing so much in this trial: could a loosing verdict has deep ramifications for them?
First of all, there is the example that sold for about $7m... if memory serves, the terms of this sale included a stipulation that no additional 1933 $20 would ever be monetized... and so if these these ten additional coins go free, then the buyer who paid $7m might have grounds for repercussions. Already respected members of this board have hypothesized that the value of the 1933 on the open market may have dropped to $2m-$3m in light of the discovery of the ten additional pieces... seems like there could be grounds here for another suit here.
Second, what about the coins confiscated in the 1940s? If this trial deems that Switt could have legally obtained 1933 Saints, then could the heirs of the owners of the confiscated coins he sold also seek damages from the government?
Regardless of the outcome from these two scenarios, it seems like what the Mint would have to fork over just in legal fees is starting to make the cost of the current trial seem like a potentially wise investment. >>
It's all about the power and nothing else. They don't care about the money. The Government pisses away more than $75 mil every day. The monetization thing is just another scheme to make them unownable.
1. 1913 Liberty Nickels (though the Langbords are seeking to have evidence about these coins introduced at trial);
2. 1955 double die cents;
3. 1969 S double die cents (and action by the Secret Service to track them down and confiscate them);
4. 1804 dollar;
5. the two gold Half Unions;
6. countless error coins of suspect origin that made it out of the mint and are openly bought and sold in the marketplace today; and
7. countless pattern coins of suspect origin that made it out of the mint and are openly bought and sold in the marketplace today.
The Mint's position on the 1913 Liberty Nikels is that, since they were never authorized to be minted, we not minted during the regular course of business of the Mint, were not monetized or issued, they do not exist. Therefore, they could not have left the mint illegally since they never existed. They consider the 1913 Liberty nickel a fantasy piece.
1. the jury verdict is rendered on the CAFRA forfeiture claim; and
2. thereafter (and only if the government loses the CAFRA forfeiture claim) when the judge issues a decision on the declaratory relief claim?
<< <i>Anyone care to guess what the post count to this thread will be when;
1. the jury verdict is rendered on the CAFRA forfeiture claim; and
2. thereafter (and only if the government loses the CAFRA forfeiture claim) when the judge issues a decision on the declaratory relief claim? >>
Not nearly as high as those sill BULLION HOCKEY PUCK threads that should be in Precious Metals and not US Coins...
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>
<< <i>So what happened today? >>
This message will self destruct in a little while. >>
Ugh!...in the Langbord Trial, not the Precious Metals forum/world.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm considering calling in sick when RWB is scheduled to testify. >>
Carpe Diem! You should definitely see him testify. After all, how often does something this historic come along? >>
I'm thinking of doing the same. Does anybody have any idea when it is RWB's turn? Would he be up next after Tripp's cross examination? Where could I find the trial info like court room location and time to be there?
John
If the government proves the coins were stolen, the government keeps the coins.
If the government does not prove the coins were stolen, the judge decides who keeps the coins as both sides claim ownership.
<< <i>So what happened today? >>
Keyman,
The answer to your question is as follows:
1. READ the entire thread
2. If you do so you will see the response from Coin World that effectively says we are on a one day delay in receiving information and why that is the case. What happened today should be available to all of us tomorrow, July 14th, hopefully by late morning.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The brother of the President of Afghanistan was assassinated today
Three bombs went off simultaneously in Mumbai,India killing more than twenty and maiming more than 100.
And we in the greatest country in the world are watching the government try and confiscate 10 gold coins from a family who had them in a safety deposit box.
Sanction - Let us not forget to mention the 1958 Double Die Lincoln cent of which there are only three known.
Stewart Blay
<< <i>And we in the greatest country in the world are watching the government try and confiscate 10 gold coins from a family who had them in a safety deposit box. >>
I was watching the debt ceiling stand off. Maybe not so great either, but surprisingly entertaining
If all the coins were accounted for in 1933, it will be difficult to prove they were stolen, since all the major players have passed on. If only one coin was minted OK, but with a mintage of 400,000 or so, some may have gotten out before the recall went into effect. While it may be very difficult to prove that they were stolen, I think the government could just say OK, they are illegal to own and keep them anyways-stolen or not. Of course whoever loses at this point will probably appeal. JMO. Bob
<< <i>They sure are taking their sweet time updating today.
Yes! I think they should get up at three a.m. and do the updates BEFORE they milk the cows!!!!
"Berke questioned Tripp about the relationship of 1933 double eagles to 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles, to which the government objected, as the coins are not the subject of this litigation. Despite Mint records showing that only four 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles left the Mint legally, there are estimates that as many as 35 are available today. Yet the the $10 eagles are not the subject to confiscation, unlike the 1933 double eagles.
Tripp countered that the 1933 $10 eagles differ from the 1933 $20 double eagles in that no 1933 double eagles left the Mint through legitimate means, while “once the barn door is open” through legal distribution of 1933 $10 eagles, it became impossible to differentiate legitimate versus illegitimate coins. Berke used this example as further proof that the Mint records of 1933 didn’t accurately show what was happening at the time. "
Coin dealers have been "picked'' on and vilified for years, and most probably deserved. But in this case, Mr Switt is somewhat of a "hero" to me, and even if his motives were greedy and seedy.... the results of his actions are definitely good for the hobby.
<< <i>Wow. Found this part very interesting:
"Berke questioned Tripp about the relationship of 1933 double eagles to 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles, to which the government objected, as the coins are not the subject of this litigation. Despite Mint records showing that only four 1933 Indian Head gold $10 eagles left the Mint legally, there are estimates that as many as 35 are available today. Yet the the $10 eagles are not the subject to confiscation, unlike the 1933 double eagles.
Tripp countered that the 1933 $10 eagles differ from the 1933 $20 double eagles in that no 1933 double eagles left the Mint through legitimate means, while “once the barn door is open” through legal distribution of 1933 $10 eagles, it became impossible to differentiate legitimate versus illegitimate coins. Berke used this example as further proof that the Mint records of 1933 didn’t accurately show what was happening at the time. " >>
There was a mention in one of the two books that Switt allegedly bought other late date gold from the Mint and sold it to dealers, including (but not limited to) 1933 $10's and 1932 $20's. This may have happened as late as 1937.
However, since 1932 $20's and 1933 $10's had previously been sold to collectors by the Mint, the Secret Service never went after those date coins, on the grounds that it could not say "We sold this coin, but somebody else sold that coin."
TD
I think the judge is already exasperated and impatient.
<< <i>Great. Now the trial is "spinning out of control".
I think the judge is already exasperated and impatient. >>
Spinning Tripp Like a Top
second guessing their choice of attorney . Seems to be throwing a lot dirt into the air hoping
create a cloud of doubt. Of course, that is only the impression I get from Roach's perspective.
the best attorney they
could have used in this
case.
<< <i>
<< <i>They sure are taking their sweet time updating today.
Yes! I think they should get up at three a.m. and do the updates BEFORE they milk the cows!!!! >>
It posted about 7 our time. When do you think the bulk of it was written? Last evening or after 5 a.m. today?
<< <i>After reading all of the coin world postings to date about the trial, I wonder if the Langbord's are
second guessing their choice of attorney . Seems to be throwing a lot dirt into the air hoping
create a cloud of doubt. Of course, that is only the impression I get from Roach's perspective. >>
Doesn't seem like he did his clients any favors yesterday does it? I hope RWB has an ace or two up his sleeve.